Yahoo. news has a site more worthless then google, its Who new. Their drivel this time is about Rachel Carson, the woman responsible for the deaths of millions thanks to her crap novel "Silent Spring". Who new was crowing about how the EPA turned 41. whoopdi doo. They outlived any usefulness thirty years ago. In fact, they should be in jail with Rachel for manslaughter for the evil they have sown. Yes, they have done some good, but I fail to see where the scales tip in their favor or even budge from the effects of world wide slaughter of millions of poor thanks to the ban of DDT.
The EPA was formed in 1970, and control of pestacides was effectively transfered in 1971. In 1972, after seven months of testimony, presiding Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man". Two months later, William Ruckelshaus, a man who had not attended even one day of the hearings banned DDT. The EPA has continued that standard to this day, causing far more harm then good.
Rachel Carson died in 1964 from breast cancer which she blamed on DDT. May she rot in hell. She lied, she helped spread unscientific conclusions which she knew were based on fraud.
Congress owes us an explanation. They should conduct hearings into this travesty. DDT was replaced by chemicals which were less efective, and in some cases were actually harmful to humans and animals. They should mark the 41st mirthday of the EPA by reinstating DDT, and moving it out of the control of the EPA, the neliminate the EPA.
That's some Third World shit right there
41 minutes ago
8 comments:
Oy. When you step in it, you go in whole hog.
The EPA was formed in 1970, and control of pestacides was effectively transfered in 1971. In 1972, after seven months of testimony, presiding Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man".
He actually said the evidence wasn't good enough to say it was carcinogenic. So the cancer-causing issue was dropped.
Sweeney also said DDT is a deadly poison that, when used in the wild, kills entire ecosystems and is uncontrollable. Sweeney's findings, based on hard evidence, determined that use of DDT as had been common would quickly start killing more people than it could save if it worked perfectly.
Judge Sweeney agreed with the two federal courts who had earlier determined that DDT use should be dramatically reduced (one court threatened a complete ban.)
But, Sweeney said, EPA did not have authority to do that since the DDT manufacturers had proposed a new label which would restrict DDT to indoor use, by professionals, to fight malaria.
So, understand that what Sweeney ruled was that DDT restricted to much-reduced, indoor use, to fight disease, was okay -- all other uses were dangerous.
Got that?
Two months later, William Ruckelshaus, a man who had not attended even one day of the hearings banned DDT.
Under the rules of government, an appeals officer is forbidden to "attend even one day" of a hearing on a topic that the official will be hearing the appeal on.
Ruckelshaus had 9,000 pages of testimony and conferred heavily with Sweeney and other experts.
Then Ruckelshaus overruled Sweeney on one minor point. Ruckelshaus ruled that EPA's new law DID grant authority to regulate the label.
Ruckelshaus issued an order that did exactly what the DDT manufacturers asked -- it restricted DDT use to indoor use to fight disease. The only use "banned" was outdoor use on crops.
If you claim Ruckelshaus dramatically changed Sweeney's ruling, you're wrong. If you claim that DDT was banned, you're wrong -- the order even left the manufacture of DDT in the U.S. alone, for import markets, effectively multiplying the amount of DDT available for fighting malaria and other tropical diseases.
So, what is your complaint? Use of DDT on cotton in the U.S. was banned. Where's the harm?
The EPA has continued that standard to this day, causing far more harm then good.
Actually, only benefits have come from that ban.
You see, in Africa and Asia, DDT was overused on crops. That bred mosquitoes that are resistant and immune to DDT, ruining WHO's campaign to stamp out malaria. Stopping DDT use on crops stopped the rapid evolution of DDT-immune insects.
More, that ban saved the bald eagle, America's national bird; it saved the brown pelican, the peregrine falcon, and the osprey, and it saved millions of bats who now scour the American south of infection-carrying mosquitoes.
The ban on DDT was one of the best things ever to happen from any government agency.
[continued next post]
[Continued from previous post]
Rachel Carson died in 1964 from breast cancer which she blamed on DDT.
That's mostly a lie. Yes, Rachel Carson died from lung cancer. No, she did not blame it on DDT. In fact, had you bothered to read her award-winning book, you'd know she didn't claim DDT causes cancer at all.
DDT DOES CAUSE CANCER, however -- fortunately it is a weak carcinogen. The evidence is in, and we know it causes cancer (ask the American Cancer Society, don't just take my word for it).
Carson never claimed DDT causes any cancer, because the science wasn't in.
Who told you that lie? Don't believe anything else that person tells you.
May she rot in hell.
See? Somebody gave you a powerful pack of lies, and now you're saying nasty, stupid stuff about a fine scientist. You wouldn't do that if you had the facts.
Would you?
She lied, she helped spread unscientific conclusions which she knew were based on fraud.
Actually, President Kennedy appointed a panel of distinguished scientists to check Carson's book -- and they said it was accurate on all counts but one. They said Carson was too easy on DDT.
Who to believe, you, or the panel of scientists including Nobel winners?
In 2007, Discover Magazine did a literature search and found more than 1,000 peer-reviewed studies had been done on DDT, all confirming Ms. Carson's conclusions. There was not a single contrary study.
Who told you otherwise? Shame on them. I know: "May they rot in hell!" you'll say. Well, that would be justified against someone who told you such lies.
[Continued from previous post]
Congress owes us an explanation. They should conduct hearings into this travesty.
Congress already conducted such hearings, over a decade in the 1970s. They concluded Ruckelshaus was right, and Carson was right.
There was another, very lengthy review done and published in 1971 -- you should read it.
Every review has concluded we did the right thing.
In 1970, for example, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the data on DDT and determined that it was one of the most life-saving chemicals ever made. However, NAS concluded that DDT's dangers far outweigh its benefits. NAS called for DDT to be removed from the market.
It's deadly stuff. Still.
DDT was replaced by chemicals which were less efective, and in some cases were actually harmful to humans and animals.
Of course, DDT is less effective now than it was at first, due to overuse. And DDT is harmful to animals and humans.
So, your fears are realized in DDT, too.
On the other hand, we've discovered that bednets are much more effective against malaria than DDT, and cheaper. While DDT enabled some great progress against malaria, continued efforts have been much more fruitful. At peak DDT use in 1959 and 1960, about 4 million people died from malaria every year. Today, with DDT use much-reduced (but still in use), fewer than 900,000 people die from malaria every year -- that's a reduction of more than 75%! In 1960 about 500 million people a year got sick from malaria -- today it's only 250 million, a 50% reduction.
Today the death toll from malaria is the lowest in human history, mostly without DDT. In fact, as DDT use as been reduced, the death toll has steadily come down. It may be counterintuitive, but it is true that deaths from malaria have fallen in lockstep with the reduction in DDT use.
Someone who doesn't understand cause and effect might say, "Hey, let's eliminate malaria altogether and stop DDT use." That's the way the world goes.
They should mark the 41st mirthday of the EPA by reinstating DDT, and moving it out of the control of the EPA, the neliminate the EPA.
Are you opposed to the bald eagle? You want to kill off America's birds?
You want to bring back malaria?
You need to get the facts, and think this through more calmly, and rationally.
Without EPA and the "ban" on DDT, we'd be having a whole lot more trouble with malaria than we are now, and we'd have far fewer birds to patrol our skies.
Ed, I didn't waste a lot of time citing good research that shows you are blowing wind, And I'm not going to here either. Sufice it to say that I have done a lot of research on the subject, and the EPA which now clasifies your breath as a polutant is a worthless organization. It has been proven by credible research that the findings regarding the bald eagle were bull shit. PURE bull shit. They tampered with the diets of hte birds, that is fact. Tampering to prove your side disproves your side. also, today, we have a shit load more cases of malaria WITH the bed nets then they did during the late fifties when DDT was being used widely. High rates of DDT in serum blood have been also proven to be an effect and not a cause in cancer patients. I've done my research, so take your propaghanda and stick it up your sorry ass.
I dare you to cite a single study done in peer review that claims DDT did not damage them.
One.
As I noted, there are more than a thousand going the other way.
But as Kin Hubbard (probably) said, it's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble; it's what we know that ain't so.
You know a lot that ain't so. Vapor. Malaria deaths today are the lowest they've been in human history, not increasing as you claim. Bednets work just fine, thank you.
So you call Nobel-winning scientists and the American Cancer Society liars. You claim the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are wrong to work to conserve eagles.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever visited America? You should come see us sometime. You'll be amazed, if you dare open your eyes.
You do a great disservice to the U.S. Army to claim to be a veteran and remain so stubbornly ignorant of the facts.
I hope, for the sake of my nation, you are lying about your service as well as lying about DDT.
Shame on you.
At least Ed, I'm not a liar like you. Interesting how the number of bald eagles increased in the USA from 1963 to 1970 despite the use of DDT. Info is blotted out on many of the years,why? Why is it that tests have shown that the tests which supposedly showed that DDT or rather DDE caused shell thinning had ot be juked? Why were the birds subjected to a diet deficient in calcium? They were as fake as Mann's hokey stick graph. When you fake data to make your point, you make the point that your position is a false one.
Do you have any proof to show that DDT causes cancer? if it did, the people who worked making it should show an extremely high rate, they don't do they?
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.1909/healthissue_detail.asp
How many deaths will it take till you know that too many people have died?
DDT did a good job of killing bugs alright.. But, I think that the bugs would have developed resistance to it through the years like they have with other chemicals. It would be interesting to bring it back for just a few, say 5, years, and look for the effects in a more modern scientific way.
Post a Comment